City of Aiken says Silver Bluff Road grocery store appeal should be dismissed or denied

Matthew Christian, Aiken Standard, S.C.
·3 min read

Jan. 31—The city of Aiken is asking for an appeal filed challenging plans to construct a grocery store and shopping center to be dismissed or denied.

Columbia attorney Daniel Plyler filed the city's response to the appeal Jan. 31. He argues the appeal should be dismissed or the appeal should be "summarily denied."

The Aiken City Council voted unanimously Nov. 28 to approve the second and final reading of an ordinance annexing and zoning the land on the corner of Silver Bluff Road and Village Green Boulevard, where the 47,270 square feet grocery store and a shopping center could be constructed, and amending the concept plan of the Village at Woodside to allow the store.

The appellants, E. Preston Rahe Jr. and John Veldman, own properties in Woodside adjacent to the location of the proposed grocery store.

Aiken attorney Dione Carroll filed their appeal Dec. 27. She argued the city council's decision to approve the ordinance was inconsistent with state and federal constitutions, state law, the city's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.

Plyler argues the court can only consider the potential constitutional issues.

He cites a 1991 Supreme Court opinion in which a former Aiken Design Review Board member challenged the city's zoning of a medical office building and the court found "[z]oning is a legislative act which will not be interfered with by the courts unless there is a clear violation of citizen's constitutional rights."

In the appeal, Rahe and Veldman argue the city council's approval of the ordinance arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably violates their property and due process rights.

Rahe and Veldman contend their property rights are violated because the grocery store will affect their ability to enjoy their properties.

The allegation of due process violations centers on a Sept. 13 workshop held by the Aiken Planning Commission in which the commission heard from Silver Bluff Development Company but did not receive any public comment.

"During the workshop, Silver Bluff Development Company was allowed to speak at length, but no public comment was taken or allowed," Carroll writes. "And, nothing in the notice indicated discussion with the developer would be allowed or conducted, thereby denying appellants and other similarly situated persons due process."

At the regular Planning Commission meeting held immediately afterward, five people spoke against the proposal. Several people spoke during a Sept. 26 public hearing held before the Aiken City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance, and 20 people spoke at the public hearing held before the second reading.

Also, Carroll notes Silver Bluff Development Company held two meetings with concerned residents and agreed to modify the lighting, to construct a sound barrier, add an additional vegetative barrier and to move the grocery store 25 feet further away from the properties of Rahe and Veldman.

Plyler says Rahe and Veldman had ample notice and an opportunity to be heard at every step in the zoning and annexation process. Therefore, he adds, Rahe and Veldman's appeal should be dismissed because they don't have standing to bring the appeal.

He again cites the Knowles decision and quotes the decision as saying zoning decisions can only be successfully challenged in court if the city's decision is "fairly debatable" and if the city acted nefariously.

He argues Rahe and Veldman have not shown the zoning was fairly debatable or that the city acted nefariously.

Plyler also argues the issues raised in the appeal weren't properly preserved, the claims are barred by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, the city is protected by the doctrines of qualified, absolute and legislative immunity.